h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I cannot see the point of revisiting such a topic (now surely out of infancy and indeed dying a quiet death) and would like to question your motives behind directing people to the virusmyth site. This misinformation by a handful of people is destructive to so many people who have been affected or infected with the virus... the mainstream publications on AIDS/HIV have long since managed to write off pubescent ranting and embrace the reality that people are living with illness directly related to diagnosis, not reacting to a mythical conspiracy theory. More useful sites to explore are listed below. If you have recently been diagnosed my advice would be to attempt to contact others who have lived with this disease and can offer a more balanced, sane view of the options and treatment choices which are available to you.
http://www.ukcoalition.org
http://www.i-base.org.uk
jasperdog x x x

I can't speak for Hell, but it is obvious to me that he doesn't buy into the 'virusmyth'. You write that the topic "is dying a quiet death" and that revisiting it is bad, I have to disagree with you there. Like other theories that have been refuted by science, but embraced by conspiracy theorists and the fringe, this one will undoubtedly make a comeback in the not distant enough future.
Some crackpot will write a book on the topic, scientists will refuse to spend time explaining why it's stupid and newspapers will report the sensation.
The only way to fight this stupidity is to stay informed, know what the theory was and why it was relegated to the dustbin.

The link to the virusmyth page? Well, I would probably not have included it, but it does show that the conspiracy theorists still thrive on the internet, and that they've not abandoned this theory yet.

Your complaint that this entry lacks links to usefull sites is also, in my opinion, unjustified. As the title says this Entry is about the AIDS/HIV controversy. If you want other information the same author has the Edited Entry A810262 AIDS HIV - General Information which is linked from this one, and also the entry A819966 AIDS HIV - the Disease, Transmission, Treatment and Tests which currently is with a sub-ed.

Good entry, Hell!

Hmm. I see that this is jasperdog's very first contribution to the guide and feel I might have come across a little bit to harsh. I'll try again:
Hi Jasperdog!
As you can see I am an usufferable know-it-all git, but there are plenty of nice people around on this site who are eagerly awaiting your next contributions to our community. If you write a little about yourself on your personal space one of them will come and greet you and make you feel welcome and you can ignore my attempt to shoot you down.
Welcome to h2g2!

Hi thanks NAITA (xy). I think that in this case you tone was OK, Jasperdog does not seem to be one of the most touchy newbies. Welcome Jasperdog.

Let me now say something:

This Entry is a part of a whole set of AIDS related entries. I thought that it was necessary also to aboard this topic to illuminate all the facets of the AIDS problem. One of which is that people are actively engaged in spreading wrong information - In the beginning this Entry was merely a sidenote paragraph in the "AIDS - Disease, etc.." Entry, but as I was researching I found out that MANY people subscribe to these "conspiracy" theories (that's also the reason why I posted the URL of that particular site, since they seem to be the loudest - I think it would be nice if as many people as possible saw that and maybe one day they could work against this kind of disturbance.) I was really astonished, or shocked even, so this Entry ended up developing to become an Entry for itself.

Its intention is not to promote myths about AIDS, but to show that there ARE people (not all of the world has a scientific background) who believe in them, and that this poses a serious problem.

I hope you could change your mind about this Entry.

HELL

Being a newbie I have obviously just jumped aboard a log to nowhere... Anger at these people is unbecoming, yet forced me to the narrow view that you were not highlighting alternatives - thanx to NAITA (xy), I now learn that you have contributed more helpful information on this - yet, unless I am again mistaken, it is mostly scientific in nature. I was trying to contribute by naming sites which deal with the actual "living with" dilemmas faced by people with this LTI. Perhaps I am just weary that having seen the AIDS publications and websites abandon this wreck of a few, they are again being promoted - albeit unintentionally - through your serious work. Unfortunately, in my experience, these people are believed, especially amongst the newly diagnosed and their families/carers, and I was trying to "work against this kind of disturbance". Hell : Sorry if I attacked rather than add to the discussion. NAITA (xy) : have posted a little more on my space
jasperdog x x x

There's a link (actually there is a whole set of links) to a very thorough site: http://www.aidsmeds.com (HIV+ owned and operated). It's in the "AIDS" overview Entry.

With this set of Entries I was more focussing on "what is AIDS" and not on the "living with AIDS" perspective. There's a link to an external site with that perspective, though. I don't think I have the competence to write about the "individual case"-side. I have been working on the virological/scientific side of HIV, hence perhaps my style of approach...

I think it is important to know that there are people out there who really believe (for example) AIDS is a gay or african problem, and that those guys are generating some noise (which eventually gets media attention etc.) throughout the web.

See you around,

HELL

This entry seems timely as there was an article published last Friday in the Guardian concerning the AIDS epidemic in South Africa and how Mgabe wasn't prepared to shell out for HIV treatment despite all that fuss of getting cheaper treatment in South Africa. Not so long ago Nelson Mandela 'told off' Mgabe for believing the HIV myth thing described in this entry.

I think it would have been nice to link to the general info AIDs entry within the entry itself, rather than just as a referenced entry. Personally, I rarely bother looking at the referenced entry list - a mistake, perhaps.

I'd like to have had a link to a site that specifically debunks the virusmyth.com claims. General info is all very well, but sometimes you want to know *exactly* why this *particular* theory is flawed, which general info sites don't tend to give. Do you know of a site/page like that, jasperdog?

Good stuff, anyway
-Martin

To me, the word 'controversy' implies that there is some merit to both sides of the argument. It's controversial that Pluto is a planet, or that death is a suitable criminal penalty. Is it really a controversy if someone insists that the Earth is flat, or that gravity is really only 9.7 nm^-2?

When AIDS first came to be known, there was much rumor and conjecture, so I know from living in the gay community that to just any Joe in the gay bar, anything might seem likely. When AIDS was GRID, it looked to me like either a cancer, or a reaction to the multitude of drugs that everyone not-so-conservative-as-I was routinely ingesting. Perhaps I didn't believe some of the more wild things, having read the information in the University of California at Berkely's Wellness Letter, but scientists were also supposing some strange things then, too.

If you use the word 'controversy' you allow people to think that there is merit to both sides, and they, being typical for human beings in the face of death, won't bother to investigate any further than their own beliefs. Normally, I don't cavil about small distinctions in words, but in this case there are murderous consequences by repeating this in this way.

What are the ground rules for publicly acceptable debate? This is why I was tempted to yikes this entry in Peer Review. It has changed for the better since then, but it still really really infuriates me.

GRID?

Well I wouldn't see that as a controversy too, if *that* is your definition of controversy. What I think is a controversy is more like a "irreconcilable difference" a conflict - from 'contra' (opposing) and 'versy' (like in versions). If one side has merits or not is in many instances subject to personal evaluation. (I think that a conspiracy-theory subscribing person will not accept that his version has no merits - irreconcilable - conflict - controversy.)

There are actually debates on a governamental level, therefore I think that many people REALLY *believe* that there is something controversial about AIDS/HIV.

So, to your example, if ONE isolated person insists the earth is flat I think it's no controversy. But if a bunch of people including scientists and governments insist, speak out loud, and convince other people, then I think there's a controversy.

If I use the word 'controversy' I am just trying to show that there is a conflict of opposing views going on. I am furthermore heavily pointing to the factual point of view. Like: "Hey folks there is a controversy - Those myth-believing folks say this and that because... - But look at these facts." So, I think it does not have murderous consequences, I would say it has more "clarifying" effect (infact - maybe I am not native-English enough - but I think you are being a bit harsh with the word 'murderous'.)

The dabate about AIDS/HIV is going on in public outside h2g2, so I see no reason why this should not be acceptable.

"This is why I was tempted to yikes this entry in Peer Review. It has changed for the better since then, but it still really really infuriates me."

FYI: This Entry has not changed a BIT from the original version, I cannot see why you think it has changed for the better. It was the only Entry of the whole AIDS/HIV set that did not need changing.

HELL

Lucinda: GRID - an old acronym for AIDS. Stands for Gay Related ImmunoDeficiency. See A818002 (last section) for more details.

HELL

You learn something new every day, a google search led me to a AIDS-timeline that starts in 1981 with: "The advent of a disease first called "gay cancer," later named GRID (Gay Related Immuno Deficiency) was reported." from http://www.journale.com/aidsdecade/timeline/timeline_body.html

Someone explain to me again how I can avoid these embarassing simulposts.

Happens all the time. You can also use the POPUPCONVERSATIONS gadget.

HELL

The only way to stay alive for very long, if you have AIDS, is to take expensive drugs that are sold and prescribed with the implicit claim 'they work against HIV'.

While certain South Africans might be saying that HIV and AIDS aren't related, their government is at the forefront in manufacturing generic versions of the antivirals. Someone is actually *doing* something, that some voices are not unanimously saying.

If you convince someone that these drugs should not be taken, no matter how well intentioned or governmentally sanctioned, you are killing them. The consequences of believing the world is flat are trivial. The consequences of allowing people to believe HIV doesn't cause AIDS is death. 'Murderous' is appropriate.

I didn't actually see a change in the article. I was subconciously hoping it was different and was thinking I should type something positive about it.

*I* am not advising or trying to convince anyone NOT to take drugs.

Push the yikes button if you think otherwise.

HELL